End of GM 3.8l motor

[scottie.harris]

Yes the japanese motors can make more horsepower in terms of supra's 2jz, but they are expensive to work on, hard to work on if you do it yourself, and just arent as reliable. Thats why i always loved the 3.8. Dont get me wrong im a person who enjoys JDM, but im refering to daily drivers. In terms of a track yea the 3.8 n/a vs JDM n/a doesnt compare.

[jporter12]

Try Nissans VQ series. Honda, Toyota and Nissan all have V-6 motors that make 300 or more HP without forced induction.

I'm just not as impressed with them as I am with something that has monster torque off the line, that throws you back in the seat.

[Bad324]

LoL... the Nissan VQ makes >300hp and will go for 300k... easy.

Yeah' date=' it's not impressive at all. [/quote']

Ever driven one? I promise you the numbers make it look better than it is. I thought mine was a slouch because it was heavy and an auto but then I drove my buddies M6 G35 and it was just the same

Test drove an M6 370Z and didn't feel much a difference either. They are awesome motors and I'm not hating on them, I just think they are mildly overrated

[ohdaho]

2JZs and VQs not reliable and hard to work on? Sure wasnt my experience, but Im slant eyed so I can probably see them parts a lil better.

[RSVDon]

2JZs and VQs not reliable and hard to work on? Sure wasnt my experience, but Im slant eyed so I can probably see them parts a lil better.

You have a Mercedes V6. GTFO.

[jporter12]

Ever driven one? I promise you the numbers make it look better than it is. I thought mine was a slouch because it was heavy and an auto but then I drove my buddies M6 G35 and it was just the same

Test drove an M6 370Z and didn't feel much a difference either. They are awesome motors and I'm not hating on them, I just think they are mildly overrated

^^^This.

I'm not going to call them junk, unreliable, or wimpy, just nothing that has impressed me.

[ReconRat]

Yeah, I don't get it. When V-6s first came out against V-8s, they were pretty much junk. Nobody wanted one. I must of missed the part where they were great. Sure, I've seen the Grand National engines, but they have nothing in common with a daily driver. I'm going to say I'm glad they are gone, I'd rather have a V-4 or inline 4 in a car. A small car. Not a full size car trying to go somewhere with a V-6 when it should have had a V-8.

edit: I'll take an inline six... Jeeps rule...

[jporter12]

Yeah, I don't get it. When V-6s first came out against V-8s, they were pretty much junk. Nobody wanted one. I must of missed the part where they were great. Sure, I've seen the Grand National engines, but they have nothing in common with a daily driver. I'm going to say I'm glad they are gone, I'd rather have a V-4 or inline 4 in a car. A small car. Not a full size car trying to go somewhere with a V-6 when it should have had a V-8.

edit: I'll take an inline six... Jeeps rule...

The thing is, the full-sized cars these days are lightweight enough that a V-6 is more than enough. This, along with the major advancements in engine tech means that V-6's are much more powerful than before. Hate to tell you Tom, but your thinking is about 25 years old! Add to the power levels the increased fuel economy, and it's a good thing that there are so many V-6's on the road today.

Oh, and Jeeps suck!

(My opinion, of course)

[RSVDon]

Inline six FTMFW. Jussayin.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b-OsKLA55mc

[ReconRat]

The thing is, the full-sized cars these days are lightweight enough that a V-6 is more than enough. This, along with the major advancements in engine tech means that V-6's are much more powerful than before. Hate to tell you Tom, but your thinking is about 25 years old! Add to the power levels the increased fuel economy, and it's a good thing that there are so many V-6's on the road today.

Oh, and Jeeps suck!

(My opinion, of course)

Yeah, I figured that was probably true. But there were some serious design flaws in the original GM V-6. I'm not sure those were ever corrected. Basically I'll change my mind when I see a V-6 in an AC Cobra. Maybe I'll just laugh instead. And yeah, Jeeps have their problems. Lots of them.

[RSVDon]

The thing is, the full-sized cars these days are lightweight enough that a V-6 is more than enough.

Lightweight my ass!

1969 Camaro SS/RS 396 = 3,383 lb curb weight

2010 Camaro SS LS3/M6 = 3,860 lb curb weight

[jporter12]

Inline six FTMFW. Jussayin.

I like inline 6's, but BMW isn't what I have in mind when it comes to inline 6's. The Skylike I drove was impressive. The reliability of the big 3's inlines says a lot. GM and their 250, Ford's 300, and the good ole slant 6 from Chrysler were all very reliable for their time. Ford even kept their's around until 96, when OBD2 and a new body style killed it for pickup use.

Yeah, I figured that was probably true. But there were some serious design flaws in the original GM V-6. I'm not sure those were ever corrected. Basically I'll change my mind when I see a V-6 in an AC Cobra. Maybe I'll just laugh instead. And yeah, Jeeps have their problems. Lots of them.

Jeep problems? Say it isn't so!!! Eh, Fiat will make those problems all go away...

[jporter12]

Lightweight my ass!

1969 Camaro SS/RS 396 = 3,383 lb curb weight

2010 Camaro SS LS3/M6 = 3,860 lb curb weight

Yea, I was talking more about the full sized cars.

Maybe they're not that much lighter, but the engines are much more powerful.

[scottie.harris]

+1

[max power]

Yeah, I don't get it. When V-6s first came out against V-8s, they were pretty much junk. Nobody wanted one. I must of missed the part where they were great. Sure, I've seen the Grand National engines, but they have nothing in common with a daily driver. I'm going to say I'm glad they are gone, I'd rather have a V-4 or inline 4 in a car. A small car. Not a full size car trying to go somewhere with a V-6 when it should have had a V-8.

edit: I'll take an inline six... Jeeps rule...

I had an 81 Camaro that had the 231 V6. Powerless and leaked like a seive. You can keep that POS.

The Jeep 258 was a great inline, that is as long as you werent trying to climb a hill. The carb sucked and it would always die on an incline.

The 4.0 HO in the YJ and early XJ was awesome. Dad had a 91 XJ with a 5 speed. He couldnt figure out why the thing went thru tires so fast.

[Steve Butters]

the new regal cxl with the turbo 4 cylinder, makes more hp than the series 2 youre driving now...how can you complain about it lacking power when you drive something with less? even the series 3 only makes about 7 hp more at the crank, which you cannot feel at the wheels....the improved fuel economy from the turbo 4 over the v6 makes it an obvious better platform....were not talking a 100hp 4banger against a 500hp v6....youre talking 7 crank hp in trade for some fuel economy....ide say its a step in the right direction...although, they really need to make a turbo v6 option with a manual 6spd...kind of a throw back type deal...but i wont hold my breathe.....ide take a new 4t over a used v6 any day

also note...that if you step up to the regal GS, it makes more power than the series III and has better fuel economy... the cxl is rated at 220, the gs is rated at 255, and the series 3 lucerne (sp) was rated at 227

cxl is rated at 18/29 mpg - the gs is rated at 19/29 - 2009 lucerne 17/26

everything about the 2.0T is better than the 3.8L NA.....and the regal gs comes in a six speed manual.... 255hp/295ft-lbs turbo 4 banger with a 6spd...sign me up, you can keep the NA 3.8 and let your grandma drive it

Edited December 8, 2010 by Steve Butters

[vf1000ride]

Man all you rice lovin, GM haters out there. JK guys.

The buick v-6 engines got a lot better as the years went on. Like I said, I had a '77 olds (Omega hatchback thank you) that had the 231ci engine in it. The factory mill was admittedly a slug, it was worn out, leaked coughed and wasn't anywhere near the rated 100hp. I swapped it out for an '83 buick v-6 with all the goodies. Holley single plane street dominator intake, Holley 400cfm 4-barrel, bored with high comps, ported and polished, oversize valves, a crane cam, dual coil valve springs, headers and plenty of other goodies. It ran like a dream and put a little over 250hp and 260ftlbs to the tires. The best part it could still put out 18mpg without effort. It got the same mpg as the original '77 engine and made better then double the power.

Heck the standard 350 v-8 in a corvette couldn't do better than those numbers until the 1990's. I had fun with that car because that engine had a weird sound to it. It loped at idle and had a mean raspy note at high rpm. People would think you where sporting a worked small-block and you would pop the hood to show them a cute looking v-6.

[RSVDon]

I like inline 6's, but BMW isn't what I have in mind when it comes to inline 6's. The Skylike I drove was impressive. The reliability of the big 3's inlines says a lot. GM and their 250, Ford's 300, and the good ole slant 6 from Chrysler were all very reliable for their time. Ford even kept their's around until 96, when OBD2 and a new body style killed it for pickup use.

Um, Jesus. Talk about old shit. Most of those motors were designed in the 50s. Reliable, maybe. Fuel efficient and powerful? No.

That straight six revs to 8400 rpm and makes 333 hp at the crank. It eats older inlines for dinner and shits out carbon.

[RSVDon]

the new regal cxl with the turbo 4 cylinder, makes more hp than the series 2 youre driving now...how can you complain about it lacking power when you drive something with less? even the series 3 only makes about 7 hp more at the crank, which you cannot feel at the wheels....the improved fuel economy from the turbo 4 over the v6 makes it an obvious better platform....were not talking a 100hp 4banger against a 500hp v6....youre talking 7 crank hp in trade for some fuel economy....ide say its a step in the right direction...although, they really need to make a turbo v6 option with a manual 6spd...kind of a throw back type deal...but i wont hold my breathe.....ide take a new 4t over a used v6 any day

also note...that if you step up to the regal GS, it makes more power than the series III and has better fuel economy... the cxl is rated at 220, the gs is rated at 255, and the series 3 lucerne (sp) was rated at 227

cxl is rated at 18/29 mpg - the gs is rated at 19/29 - 2009 lucerne 17/26

everything about the 2.0T is better than the 3.8L NA.....and the regal gs comes in a six speed manual.... 255hp/295ft-lbs turbo 4 banger with a 6spd...sign me up, you can keep the NA 3.8 and let your grandma drive it

New Buick Regal GS is tits. But I wish GM would quit effing us over and put the V6 DI TT motor from the Opel Insignia in it. I mean, since it is the Insignia already...

[Steve Butters]

New Buick Regal GS is tits. But I wish GM would quit effing us over and put the V6 DI TT motor from the Opel Insignia in it. I mean, since it is the Insignia already...

i agree.

but you know how it goes....US never gets the good shit, too many enviro-nazis live here

[jporter12]

i agree.

but you know how it goes....US never gets the good shit, too many enviro-nazis live here

Thank the gubment.

One good thing about all the epa and cafe crap, it caused the manufacturers to go with electronic fuel injection, which I believe is where the power increases have come from. If we were still "metering" fuel through carbs, we'd still be driving powerless cars.

[Steve Butters]

idk man...my carb'd stang felt like it had a little bit more power than your every day EFI grocery getter...

[scottie.harris]

Yea the GS is sweet as hell, but as far as the turbo 4cyl goes forced induction is harder on a motor. Still might be fast, but if i were wanting power id go get the new lacrosse super its suppose to be the "new grand national" to a sense, think they said 0-60 was like 5.6 or so...

If i were gonna get forced induction, id get the supercharged V6 GS over the new 4cyl turbo. just my preference.

[jporter12]

idk man...my carb'd stang felt like it had a little bit more power than your every day EFI grocery getter...

That was a bit different though, seeing how it was built! When you factor in how "driveable" it is, and fuel economy, the EFI would win. EFI is more efficient, more efficiency=more power output, up to a certain point.

[jporter12]

As for newer cars, I drove a G6 today with a N/A 2.4 in it, and I was surprized at how well it pulled. I was expecting much less.